# LOTR: Why no "Scouring of the Shire"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 18, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635 "2006-12-18T15:32:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/61 "2006-12-19T21:41:17Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] So you’re telling me that no future DVD release will include the scene with Frodo, Merry, Pippin and Galadriel. I think I just saved myself $60. [/QUOTE] Actually, it being slashfic, it would be homoerotic in nature. Which reminds me of someone having transcribed only the vocal track from one scene, where a thoroughly bone-weary Sam and Frodo are climbing up a steep slope along with Gollum. As best as I can remember from memory, it went something like this: Sam: Frodo! [panting and heavy breathing] Frodo: Sam! [panting and heavy breathing] Sam: Frodo! [panting and heavy breathing] Frodo: Sam! [panting and heavy breathing] Gollum: Come, hobbitses! Come quickly now! 😃 ============== On a more serious note, I think that, while Peter Jackson’s movies had some serious lapses in character depiction and omitted some significant elements in favor of “carrying” material (you can establish Frodo and Sam making a fatiguing trek into Mordor in about half the footage PJ took; Aragorn falling into the river was absolutely pointless; etc.), by and large he did a **fairly** faithful adaptation of the books to a different medium. Given some of the unmitigated **crap** that comes out on film misleadingly bearing the same names as books I enjoyed, I do not subscribe to the theory that Peter Jackson actually has balrog wings! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/62 "2006-12-19T21:58:20Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] I didn’t. I would have if the Scouring were included. [/QUOTE] I stand corrected. I didn’t believe there was someone who was enough of a fan to care about the Scouring but not enough of a fan to buy the Extended Edition. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/63 "2006-12-19T22:26:28Z")
[QUOTE=RikWriter] No way to prove one way or the other. [/quote] True, but that does not mean the two possibilities are equally likely. It’s certainly possible he’d be pleased. However, there is zero evidence in his own letters that he was happily anticipating future adaptations. All the evidence runs to the contrary. > [@](#): > > I think the movie treatment of Faramir made him more human and admirable. It’s easier to admire someone for resisting temptation if you see how close they came to giving into it and how irresistible its pull was. If Tolkien had intended that, he would have written it that way. I’ll go with him. I’m not completely comfortable with the notion of someone resisting temptation at the last second being more admirable than someone who resists it earlier. To borrow from E/R, Carter is stabbed by an insane patient and nearly dies. In the aftermath he becomes addicted to painkillers. He finally goes to rehab and returns clean. Some time after that, he gets a painkiller pill, puts it in his mouth, but at the last second spits it out. That’s good for him, and I admire him more than if he actually swallowed it. But I’d prefer a doctor who was never addicted. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/64 "2006-12-19T22:27:35Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] So you’re telling me that no future DVD release will include the scene with Frodo, Merry, Pippin and Galadriel. [/QUOTE] “Hairy toes, I LOVE hairy toes!” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/65 "2006-12-19T23:13:26Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] My only disappointment was making Arwen the love interest for Aragorn rather than Eowyn, as Tolkein had. It makes more sense to strengthen the alliance of Rohan and Gondor, but no sense for an elven princess to give up her immortality. But Jackson is a filmmaking genius, not a Tolkien geek, and as brawny, fun cinema, LOTR is as good as or better than Star Wars. [/QUOTE] Er… but Arwen was Aragorn’s girl in the books too. Eowyn falls in love with and marries Prince Faramir in the book. I’m of the opinion that they should make a series of short films, ala the Animatrix (The Animirillion? Nah), with various Middle Earth stories made as little films all collected together. This would of course include the Scouring of the Shire, along with the various side stories or historical stories revolving around Middle Earth, or whatever adventures Gandalf was on when he wandered off. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/66 "2006-12-19T23:38:04Z")
[QUOTE=Raguleader] Er… but Arwen was Aragorn’s girl in the books too. Eowyn falls in love with and marries Prince Faramir in the book. I’m of the opinion that they should make a series of short films, ala the Animatrix (The Animirillion? Nah), with various Middle Earth stories made as little films all collected together. This would of course include the Scouring of the Shire, along with the various side stories or historical stories revolving around Middle Earth, or whatever adventures Gandalf was on when he wandered off. [/QUOTE] I could get behind that, but only if they stuck to stories Tolkien wrote. I don’t want to see Gandalf tossing fireballs right and left. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/67 "2006-12-19T23:48:15Z")
[QUOTE=sunrazor] My only disappointment was making Arwen the love interest for Aragorn rather than Eowyn, as Tolkein had. [/QUOTE] I **think** what he is trying to say is that Jackson followed the same story here that Tolkien had, and he would have preffered that Eowyn be the love interest instead of Arwen. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/68 "2006-12-20T00:16:00Z")
[QUOTE=AuntiePam] I wonder if Jackson ever considered four, so he wouldn’t have to leave so much out. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Priceguy] If memory serves, he originally intended to make only two movies (covering all three books (not that there really are three books, there are six, or rather one, but never mind)) and was amazed when the boys with the money said “let’s do three”. It probably never crossed his mind to try for four. [/QUOTE] Jackson originally wrote a treatment of the entire book which covered two movies. He settled for that because fantasy books had never done particularly well in films, but one film was clearly too short. The first film company he went to offered two films, but later dropped out. Jackson describes in the Extended Edition how he took the script to New Line and felt terrible when the Head Honcho said “This isn’t two films..” (thinking he was going to be offered one). Then despair turned to joy as the Man continued “…it’s three!” Given they overlapped the making of all 3 films, took 6 years over some parts and were still making changes up to each film’s deadline, I think 4 films would have been too much to bear. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/69 "2006-12-20T00:17:58Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] I could get behind that, but only if they stuck to stories Tolkien wrote. I don’t want to see Gandalf tossing fireballs right and left. [/QUOTE] I dunno, I could go for a film noir version of The Hobbit, ala “Detective Story”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/70 "2006-12-20T00:27:52Z")
[QUOTE=Menocchio] Can I just interject here and say how tired I am of this joke. Also, there was a second Highlander movie, and multiple sequels after that. They all sucked. Deal with it. Anyway, I agree with the general consensus that the Scouring simply wouldn’t work in a film. You can’t follow a grand battle against the ultimate evil with a little battle against an already broken smaller evil, no matter how thematically important. The pacing of the end of ROTK was already pretty tortured, and I say that as a big fan of that film. [/QUOTE] Thank you, but I doubt the naysayers will listen. > [@Sunrazor](#): > > My only disappointment was making Arwen the love interest for Aragorn rather than Eowyn, as Tolkein had. It makes more sense to strengthen the alliance of Rohan and Gondor, but no sense for an elven princess to give up her immortality. But Jackson is a filmmaking genius, not a Tolkien geek, and as brawny, fun cinema, LOTR is as good as or better than Star Wars. You’re joking, right? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/71 "2006-12-20T00:46:21Z")
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac] Are you saying that the Scouring could have been integrated into the movie, but Jackson just didn’t know how to do it effectively? If so, I’d be interested to hear your ideas. (I’m not interested in hearing a blanket “the movies suck because they don’t follow the book verbatim.”) [/quote] [QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] I didn’t say anything about whether it could have been integrated into the movie. I said that Jackson didn’t care whether it could have been done effectively. Jackson had his own version of the plot arranged in his mind before he (and his co-writers) wrote the script, based on his vague memories of his two readings of the book. [/quote] Presumably you agree the Scouring is too difficult to integrate into a film? Next you make some wild claims. Jackson was inspired by the Lord of the Rings when he first read it and always wanted to make a film of it. However (as Bakshi’s earlier attempt showed) Jackson needed to wait until computer technology could produce the quality required for the special effects. He and his co-writers agreed that Bombadil and the Scouring were always going to be incredibly hard to get into a film. They discussed these points extensively. Naturally they wrote a 90 page outline to show to film companies. But they constantly referred to the books, using Tolkien’s original words whenever possible. [QUOTE=glee] Wendell, what are you basing your allegation on? - Jackson is a huge Tolkien fan [/quote] [QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] Jackson was _not_ a huge Tolkien fan. He had read the book twice, once at 18 and once in his thirties. Jackson is not even much of a reader. He was someone who grew up making his own films on a camera his parents gave him. Jackson’s strengths are visual. He doesn’t write good dialogue and isn’t good at directing actors in scenes with important dialogue: > **[Peter Jackson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Jackson)** > > Sir Peter Robert Jackson (born 31 October 1961) is a New Zealand filmmaker, entrepreneur and visual effects pioneer. He is best known as the director, screen-writer, and producer of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001–2003) and the Hobbit trilogy (2012–2014), both of which are adapted from the novels of the same name by J. R. R. Tolkien. Other notable films include the critically lauded drama Heavenly Creatures (1994), the horror comedy The Frighteners (1996), the epic monster remake film King ... [/quote] I don’t know why you give this link, since the only point where it agrees with you is that Jackson made his own movies. I’m a former member of the Tolkien Society, corresponded with Tolkien, own all his books and (like Jackson) also have read the Lord of the Rings precisely twice. Perhaps you don’t understand that reading the book is a real event for us true fans. Jackson was one of the three writers on the film. Perhaps you should also listen to the actors, producers, special effect techies, artists and crew on the Extended Edition, who all remark on Jackson’s passion to take a ‘once in a lifetime’ chance to film this incredible book. Jackson is credited with rewriting dialogue after listening to various actors’ suggestions and with being a truly amazing director, prepared to take great pains to get the best out of actors like Ian McKellen. > [@glee](#): > > I have listened to Jackson’s commentary on the Extended Edition. > [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > Jackson’s commentaries (and his comments in interviews) are hype. He changes his story about his view of the relationship of the book and the film whenever he wants to. At times he insisted that faithfulness to the book was important to him. At other times he said that it wasn’t important at all. Perhaps you could give some cites for these allegations. Jackson (and the other writers) discuss at length how they wanted to be as clsoe to the book as possible **given cinematic limitations**. So, for example, Glorfindel, in the book riding from Rivendell to meet the injured Frodo, is replaced. A cinema audience can’t flick back in time to work out who Glorfindel is. It is simply wrong in film terms to bring in such a character for one scene. Replacing him with Arwen was a good idea. Tolkien (bless him) puts the love story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices. Again this is not possible in a film. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/72 "2006-12-20T00:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle] If Tolkien had intended that, he would have written it that way. I’ll go with him. [/QUOTE] Why? He’s not god. He can make mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/73 "2006-12-20T01:05:01Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] There were all kinds of good reasons for putting this in the book, most of them metaphorical and allegorical. Unlike Jackson, I liked this part of the book because it brought home the extent to which the evil had spread, and the need for good people to take action against creeping evil. It also allowed the heroes to be heroic in their hometown – remember, nobody from the Shire saw any of their exploits. In literary form, the scouring works on several levels. [/quote] Your evidence that Jackson didn’t like this chapter is based on a newspaper report? [QUOTE=Sunrazor] In the movie, however, it just wouldn’t work. Remember, movies have to be pigeonholed in the viewer’s mind, and LOTR was pigeonholed as an action epic. Audiences expect the depth of a teaspoon in action epics, and Peter Jackson excels at meeting audiences’ expectations. [/quote] Actually LOTR was intently discussed as the film version of a world designed over 40 years. For example, the list of credits at the end of the Extended Edition covers thousands of fans who were passionate about seeing the book filmed. Bearing in mind the book has sold millions of copies world-wide, I don’t think ‘the viewers’ were going to be Bruce Willis fans, hoping for car chases. The actual audience expectation was that Jackson would show the clash of good and evil, how normal people can make a difference, how true friendship can inspire amazing acts of courage and how difficult it is for life to return to normal for those who have seen the horror of war. Jackson certainly nailed those expectations! [QUOTE=Sunrazor] My only disappointment was making Arwen the love interest for Aragorn rather than Eowyn, as Tolkein had. It makes more sense to strengthen the alliance of Rohan and Gondor, but no sense for an elven princess to give up her immortality. [/QUOTE] You need to get the Extended Edition to see how much care Jackson took to show the love story of Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien puts it mainly in the Appendices, but Jackson has some remarkable scenes. And of course the point is that Arwen loves Aragorn despite her father’s disapproval and the fact she will be separated from elvenkind as well as losing her immortality. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/74 "2006-12-20T01:36:41Z")
Most easily trollable thread ever. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/75 "2006-12-20T02:15:00Z")
[QUOTE=glee] Tolkien (bless him) puts the love story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices. Again this is not possible in a film. [/QUOTE] And, honestly, created a WTF moment for millions of first time readers…but Eowyn…I thought… Yeah, there is a little hint of the Arwen thing back in Fellowship, but at the end of the book, that hint hasn’t been sufficient to avoid whiplash. While I really disliked much of how Arwen was inserted into the story (tying her fate to the ring, in particular - Arwen, the thousand year old petulant teenager did nothing for me either), inserting her into the story to make you understand why Aragorn was tempted by Eowyn, but likewise could never have followed through was much needed. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/76 "2006-12-20T04:13:10Z")
[QUOTE=RikWriter] Why? He’s not god. He can make mistakes. [/QUOTE] Boromir shot first! 😃 d&r ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635/77 "2006-12-20T17:24:36Z")
[QUOTE=RikWriter] Why? He’s not god. He can make mistakes. [/QUOTE] Actually, as regards this set of stories, he IS God. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lotr-why-no-scouring-of-the-shire/384635.md?page=3)